The Gospel of Jesus Christ

[Dre89]

Battlecow is correct. The catholic church was largely influenced over the years by money, power, and polotics. The protestants looked at the bible and found out that the catholic church was doing numerous things that weren't in the bible and separated. Also, catholocism is largely a birthright type of thing and many who are catholic were born into it and don't necessarily fully believe in it.

I don't understand these arguments at all.

The reason why the Protestant Church doesn't have a a history ofcprruptiopn like the Cath Church is simply because it didn't have the power the Cath Church did for the 1500 years Catholicism was around before the first Prot denomination emerged.

It's ridiculous to claim Prots wouldn't have committed large scale corruption if they had the same power as the Cath Church.

The fact that people make the claim "the C Church does stuff not in the Bible, therefore it deviated from the original Church" shows how thousands of years can confuse people's priorities. The Bible was assembled by St. Irinaeus, a C, for the C Church. The Church was prior to the Bible, the Bible was put together by the C Church because written text was more efficient for spreading the message to areas with different languages than preaching, the Bible wasn't even theologically necessary

Now here's the punch-line; We know the Bible was made by the C Church. The thing is, you were only supposed to be reading the Bible if you believed the C Church was divinely inspired . So if you're going to claim that the C Church is corrupt, then how on Earth is the Bible still divinely inspired, when it was a assembled by a faulty institution.

To give an analogy of how absurd that is, imagine someone writes a book on self-help, which reader A reads and lives by. Then imagine that in a TV interview, the author gives a piece of advice not mentioned in his book. Now if A said "well it's not in the book so so he's wrong" it would be totally illogical, because the only reason why you'd give the book authority would be because you would consider its author worthy of authority.

What makes Protestantism even more absurd is that it is a Scripture-exclusive interpretation, but how do they know this? From Scripture. That's the fallacy of circularity- you can't use Scripture to verify itself. This means Jesus must have had a Scripture exclusive view as well, so why didn't he write anything down? Not only that, but if Jesus believes in Scripture and not Tradition, why did he not only write anything down, but then just hope an insitution (the institution being one which Ps claim is faulty) would write it down?

How does that make any sense at all? So Jesus wants us to believe that the C Church is not divinely inspired, and to have a Scripture exclusive interpretation, but then wants us to accept the texts they compiled (some of the New Testament texts would have even been written by this institution) as the word of God?

Basically, if Catholicism is wrong, how can any other Bible-based religion/denomination be correct?

 

[StealthyGunnar]

Basically, if Catholicism is wrong, how can any other Bible-based religion/denomination be correct?

Just wondering: are you Christian?

Just because the Catholic Church compiled the Bible, it doesn't make them right. The Catholic Church has always been passing off false Biblical teachings as if they were true.

For example, the Bible clearly states that the bread and wine in communion are the body and blood of Christ. The Catholic Church believes Transubstantiation, where the bread and wine become the body and blood.

Another example: The Catholic Church teaches that people who believe will go to Purgatory when they die, to purge themselves of their sins before going to heaven. The Bible tells us the when we die we will just go to heaven if we believe.

Yet another example: The Catholic Church teaches to pray to Mary and other Saints. This teaching is not found in the Bible.

Yet another example: The Catholic Church teaches that one can earn heaven by good works and faith. The Bible says that, because we are sinful, the only way we can get to heaven is believing in the dying and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I could go on and on, but I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from. The Catholic Church teaches many things that are either not in the Bible or contradict what the Bible says. Just because they're the most popular, it doesn't mean they are right.

 

[Dre89]

I was a C for about a year or so a couple of years back.

Your post is exactly what I'm
talking about. I'm not saying C is right, I'm saying if C isn't, there's no way an other denomination is.

Your Bible references are pointless because as I said in my last post, the Bible was to be read with the belief that the C Church was divinely inspired, so not everything needed to be in the Bible because belief that the Bible was divinely inspired was itself a teaching of the Church.

 

[Crooked Crow]

So, I went to church today for the first time consensually in... 14 years?

I've noticed that Christianity is an extremely misrepresented religion, and that the core values aren't so far fetched, and it essentially stresses spiritual enlightenment and the closest thing to happiness you'll find on this planet.

However, I wouldn't call myself a Christian just yet- I was just interested in the service, and went with some close friends who are practicing Christians. I also don't find the value in creating artificial systems to reinforce the point that my actions have consequences, and especially through often skewed and biased perspectives.

"Those who accuse others of sin; often commit the first sin themselves." He opened up his speech with this line.

To my surprise, the lesson was very well done, intelligent, and as an agnostic, I found myself relating to what the minister was saying a lot more than I thought was possible initially.

There is no general consensus on what this thread is about, nor its intended direction, so I figured I'd throw this out there. I based Christianity, and other religious institutions on negative, reinforced examples, but I suppose the black sheep are the loudest of the bunch.

He talked about regret and guilt- and how whether it keeps you up at night or not.

Which is scarily accurate, in my opinion. I'm going off in tangents now, but I had to get this off my chest.

Eh.

 

[Battlecow]

OK, so leaving that behind, you seem to be working with a very sketchy knowledge of how christianity works. An outsider or Catholic might say "Oh hey, one church is the original, one church is an offshoot, it's a no-brainer," but, in point of fact, the Catholic church's beliefs are built on an aggregation of thousands of years of tradition, and the protestant denominations largely see themselves as a reversion to an original truth, and closer to the "first" church (i.e. the church of Jesus's disciples) than the Catholics by far. the tl;dr there is that the Catholics take basic christian beliefs and then add a bunch of **** to them over the course of thousands of years.

At any rate, value-judging religions you're not a part of like that is the height of silly. "tainted by inaccuracy"? Seriously?

Furthermore, dollars to donuts that Nick is a protestant (probably "non-denominational," but that's still protestant). Which means that citing Catholic doctrine because it's true-er makes about as much sense as going into a debate about whether Islam is an evil religion and saying that it is, because Zoroastrians (who believe in a truer religion than Islam) believe that (insert ridiculous belief here).

So yeah, Jesus didn't found the Catholic church. I can guaran-****ing-tee you that Peter wasn't saying Hail Marys and praying to the icons of saints and talking about purgatory.

 

[Dre89]

So, I went to church today for the first time consensually in... 14 years?

I've noticed that Christianity is an extremely misrepresented religion, and that the core values aren't so far fetched, and it essentially stresses spiritual enlightenment and the closest thing to happiness you'll find on this planet.

However, I wouldn't call myself a Christian just yet- I was just interested in the service, and went with some close friends who are practicing Christians. I also don't find the value in creating artificial systems to reinforce the point that my actions have consequences, and especially through often skewed and biased perspectives.

"Those who accuse others of sin; often commit the first sin themselves." He opened up his speech with this line.

To my surprise, the lesson was very well done, intelligent, and as an agnostic, I found myself relating to what the minister was saying a lot more than I thought was possible initially.

There is no general consensus on what this thread is about, nor its intended direction, so I figured I'd throw this out there. I based Christianity, and other religious institutions on negative, reinforced examples, but I suppose the black sheep are the loudest of the bunch.

He talked about regret and guilt- and how whether it keeps you up at night or not.

Which is scarily accurate, in my opinion. I'm going off in tangents now, but I had to get this off my chest.

Eh.

But what we've been criticising here is the theological inconcistencies of it, not how appealing the message is.

Also, preachers are known to use psychological tricks. For example, when asked the question of why God allows evil, some preachers will tell you you should just be grateful that God has let you live this long. Essentially, instead of answering the question they just try to make you feel guilty. Just be careful of tricks like that.

And no offence, but if you're genuinely considering accepting Christianity simply because it has an appealing message, without checking up on its theology, the historical reliability of the Bible, its scientific and metaphysical implications, then you won't have justified belief and discussion in the debate hall may not suit you, seeing as in here we prefer to have rational, justified beliefs that can be debated over..

 

[Nicholas1024]

@Dre
Let me give you a rough timeline.

30 (or so) AD:
Jesus's ministry and most of the events

50-80 AD:
The individual books of the new testament are written.

Much of the in between time period:
Christianity undergoes some intense persecution from the Romans.

3rd/4th century AD:
Christianity becomes legal and the official religion of the Roman empire, the Bible is compiled.

Somewhere in the intermediate time period:
The Catholic church becomes corrupted (due to the political power it has it attracts people for the wrong reasons), and starts adding new teachings and such onto the Bible.

1600 (don't quote me on that, but somewhere in this range) AD:
The protestants protest that the Catholic church has become corrupt, and revert to following just the Bible.


So here's my position,

The catholic church was still reliable at the time the Bible was compiled, and even if it wasn't, we can check the historical backing of the individual books themselves, if you look into it the Bible contains all the books with good backing, and none of the false gospels come close.

Regarding tradition vs scripture:

I don't think that at the time the Bible was written there was anything special about the gospels themselves as compared to the stories people would tell of Jesus, at that point both would have been equally reliable. However, if you check the tradition that had accumulated over the 1500 years or so in the Catholic church against the Scripture that was written in the first century (we have a complete copy in one manuscript of the new testament from the 3rd or 4th century, and plenty of fragments before then), you'll find that they don't match up. (For example, Purgatory, one of the major Catholic doctrines is not in the Bible at all.) So, the natural conclusion is that the tradition had been corrupted over time, and so the scripture is the only reliable source of info regarding Jesus left.

And as far as the psychological tricks you mentioned go, to address the example you picked, to destroy all evil would basically be to destroy all of humanity, as not one person is truly perfect before God.

@Yhil
Glad to see it had a positive impact on you, if you have any questions regarding the doctrine or backing (historical, scientific, or otherwise), send me a VM (or just bring it up in thread) and I'll answer as best I can.

 

[_Keno_]

Edit: Oh well, Nicholas just posted his version of what I'm regurgitating from my memories.

I believe your numbers a little off when it comes to dates written. At least according to the wiki.

Latest at (potentially) about 110 AD, latest probably at about 95 AD.

 

[Crooked Crow]

But what we've been criticising here is the theological inconcistencies of it, not how appealing the message is.

Yeah, wasn't sure what the intention of this thread was. That makes sense.

And you're jumping the gun on me here- it was just a pseudo-blog, I wasn't stating nor correlating anything in that post as an argument or rebuttal, just felt like saying it at that point of time.

I'm not a believer, nor will I ever be one, so all of your points are correct. I've been here for a while, and solid, concrete evidence is my preference when debating, anyways. There shouldn't really be an alternative.

As for theological inconsistencies, I feel the entirety of religion was mainly incorporated to control, intimidate, and indoctrinate the mainstream populace into fulfilling specific personal agendas. Now while this -may not- have been the intended purpose, it's become the aftermath.

But it was still a nice experience I had today, primarily because of the people I went with, and while a certain minority, they weren't complete hypocritical nor contradictory buffoons who use their religion as a scapegoat to justify certain ideologies or beliefs. The pastor was also pretty relaxed and made it an interesting sermon, and while I may not be a follower of Christianity, there was genuine passion, and as I stated before, this is something I rarely see.

*Nicholas: I'm actually interested in studying Scripture. Where do you recommend I start?

 

[Dre89]

@Dre
Let me give you a rough timeline.

30 (or so) AD:
Jesus's ministry and most of the events

50-80 AD:
The individual books of the new testament are written.

Much of the in between time period:
Christianity undergoes some intense persecution from the Romans.

3rd/4th century AD:
Christianity becomes legal and the official religion of the Roman empire, the Bible is compiled.

Somewhere in the intermediate time period:
The Catholic church becomes corrupted (due to the political power it has it attracts people for the wrong reasons), and starts adding new teachings and such onto the Bible.

1600 (don't quote me on that, but somewhere in this range) AD:
The protestants protest that the Catholic church has become corrupt, and revert to following just the Bible.


So here's my position,

The catholic church was still reliable at the time the Bible was compiled, and even if it wasn't, we can check the historical backing of the individual books themselves, if you look into it the Bible contains all the books with good backing, and none of the false gospels come close.

Regarding tradition vs scripture:

I don't think that at the time the Bible was written there was anything special about the gospels themselves as compared to the stories people would tell of Jesus, at that point both would have been equally reliable. However, if you check the tradition that had accumulated over the 1500 years or so in the Catholic church against the Scripture that was written in the first century (we have a complete copy in one manuscript of the new testament from the 3rd or 4th century, and plenty of fragments before then), you'll find that they don't match up. (For example, Purgatory, one of the major Catholic doctrines is not in the Bible at all.) So, the natural conclusion is that the tradition had been corrupted over time, and so the scripture is the only reliable source of info regarding Jesus left.

And as far as the psychological tricks you mentioned go, to address the example you picked, to destroy all evil would basically be to destroy all of humanity, as not one person is truly perfect before God.

@Yhil
Glad to see it had a positive impact on you, if you have any questions regarding the doctrine or backing (historical, scientific, or otherwise), send me a VM (or just bring it up in thread) and I'll answer as best I can.

But Nic your entire argument already assumes that the Bible is the word of God. This is my point, if the institution who collaborated the Bible is faulty, then epistemically, you lose any reason to believe it is the word of God.

You're still treating the Bible as independent from the Church, when belief in the Bible was itself a teaching of the Church.

A scripture-exclusive interpretation is illogical, because apart from the fact it is circular, the scripture was never a theological necessity.

Besides, the idea was that the Church is blessed with the Holy Spirit, therefore any teachings in Faith and Morals doctrince are also divinely inspired.

Now if you don't believe this, then you're essentially saying that Jesus, who believed in a scripture exclusive interpretation, didn't write anything down, and then entrusted such documentation to an insitution who he knew in the future would go faulty. That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Nicholas1024]

But Nic your entire argument already assumes that the Bible is the word of God. This is my point, if the institution who collaborated the Bible is faulty, then epistemically, you lose any reason to believe it is the word of God.

You're still treating the Bible as independent from the Church, when belief in the Bible was itself a teaching of the Church.

A scripture-exclusive interpretation is illogical, because apart from the fact it is circular, the scripture was never a theological necessity.

Besides, the idea was that the Church is blessed with the Holy Spirit, therefore any teachings in Faith and Morals doctrince are also divinely inspired.

Now if you don't believe this, then you're essentially saying that Jesus, who believed in a scripture exclusive interpretation, didn't write anything down, and then entrusted such documentation to an insitution who he knew in the future would go faulty. That makes absolutely no sense.

I'm not following you DRE, my argument has nothing to do with faith or divine inspiration here. Look at it from a purely historical perspective from a second. Suppose you had two separate accounts of an event, one from shortly after the event happened (30 years or so, which is short from a historical perspective), and the other one from a long time later (500 years, let's say.) All other things being equal, which one would you believe? The first one. That's basically how I view the Bible vs Catholic teachings.

Anyway, I don't think Jesus had a strong preference for scripture over tradition, in fact it's quite likely that for the first few generations after his ministry that his teaching was primarily taught via speaking (aka tradition), not via scripture. However, what I hold is that although we can use historical tests to verify that the contents of the Bible haven't changed over the years, we don't have a reliable record of the traditions. So basically, I'm not assuming the Bible is the word of God, I'm saying that based on the historical evidence, the Bible is a far better representation of what Jesus's life and ministry compared to what the Catholic Church teaches.

@CP
Yeah, I didn't bother to look the dates up, the most important part is the general ranges, not the exact year of each event.

 

[Battlecow]

Dre, respond to my last post. Everything you're saying is verifiably wrong.

 

[Gadiel_VaStar]

Looks interesting, I'll get back to yall on this

 

[Dre89]

Nic- I know you have a rational argument, not a fidiestic one. I'm saying that epistemically it's flawed in that those texts 30 years after the events are only valid if you believe the C Church is divinely inspired, because the belief that those texts are divinely inpsired came from the belief that the C Church was divinely inspired.

No matter what way you look at it, the Bible was only considered divinely inspired because the Church who made it was divinely inspired, that was the grounds the Bible was supposed to be read on. You don't think the Church was divinely inspired, so epistemically you have no rational grounds to believe the Bible was divinely inspired.

Battlecoward- We have documents showing that not only was Rome considered the authority on religious matters prior to the collaboration of the Bible, but we also have documents dating back to 106 AD which show it was considered a heresy to not believe in the transansubstantiation.

 

[Sucumbio]

For example, the Bible clearly states that the bread and wine in communion are the body and blood of Christ. The Catholic Church believes Transubstantiation, where the bread and wine become the body and blood.

This is a tit for tat, not really a contradiction in terms. During a Baptist communion, you may be fed wafers and grape juice, for instance. Those in attendance will hear the words:

"Take. Eat. This is my body." Then the congregation eats the wafer. They believe that in doing so they are -symbolically- ingesting Christ's body.

The Catholics simply perceive the Last Supper in a more literal light. The words spoken during communion were spoken by Jesus, as he broke bread, and held aloft his cup. They believe that during a Catholic communion, that the wafer and grape juice is literally becoming flesh and blood - that of Christ. And they believe only a Catholic Priest or higher can do this. It IS a transformation, because before the communion, the grape juice and wafer are not discernible from any other. But after the communion commences, they suddenly become biologically different - chemically different. Is this true? I haven't had a chance to bring my chemistry set to a Catholic Mass, lol. It tastes the same ... but who knows, maybe it really is different.

Another example: The Catholic Church teaches that people who believe will go to Purgatory when they die, to purge themselves of their sins before going to heaven. The Bible tells us the when we die we will just go to heaven if we believe.

Uh, no. Catholics believe that you will go to Purgatory when you die if you haven't received the sacraments, including ones such as Baptism, the Last Rites, etc. It's not just automatically as you're implying.

And nor does the bible say "just believe and you go to heaven." Can you imagine? All those criminally bad people, who absolutely believe in God, and can't wait to get to heaven. Also it may help for you to cite the biblical passages from which you have drawn your conclusions.

Yet another example: The Catholic Church teaches to pray to Mary and other Saints. This teaching is not found in the Bible.

There's nothing wrong with worshiping the mother of God. True the Catholics make a bigger deal out of it than the other denominations, but what of it? It's not explicitly forbidden. The "Hail Mary" is a simple reminder to Catholics that Mary was a perfect soul, unblemished by original sin.

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/faith_beliefs/mary_in_bible/

Yet another example: The Catholic Church teaches that one can earn heaven by good works and faith. The Bible says that, because we are sinful, the only way we can get to heaven is believing in the dying and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Well just a second ago you said all you have to do is believe, now you have to believe in God... I don't want to nit pick, I just think you need to try harder if you want to find some real reasons why Catholicism is so contradictory, because honestly I don't see contradiction in anything you've brought up, just a fundamental lack of knowledge in scripture.

So yeah, Jesus didn't found the Catholic church. I can guaran-****ing-tee you that Peter wasn't saying Hail Marys and praying to the icons of saints and talking about purgatory.

You and others have mistaken Catholicism with Catechism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church

It is true that a lot of practices, prayers, etc. are not given in the bible.

http://christianity.about.com/od/prayersverses/a/basicstoprayer.htm

The bible is definitely a guideline by which to go about your faith. It just so happens that Catholics have spent 2000 years perfecting this. There's no doubt that power corrupts, and that the Catholic Church has been damaged over the years by poor decision making, and greed. But I can't discount their interpretations of scripture.

Battlecoward-

now now, be nice.

 

[Dre89]

Yeah, because Battlecoward is so nice to other people.

Sucumbio, you don't need to refer to the Bible to answer Protestant scepticism. That's what validates Catholicism over other denominations, it's not epistemically cirular because it's not Scripture exlusive, and was the original Tradition who put the Bible togther.

Basing a faith entirely on the Bible is stupid because the Bible wasn't even a theological necessity- it was only collaborated because written text was the most efficient way to spread the message to places with language barriers.

Not only that, but the Protestant denominations then claim the institute who collaborated this Bible is not divinely inspired, yet the Bible is. How can you infer that?

How can you know that a faulty, un-inspired institute selected the right texts to put in the Bible? You have no way of knowing that if you don't believe its creator was divinely inspired.

And how can you know that the early Church was correct? The only thing we have to tell us that is texts compiled by guess who, the same early Church. Again, the fallacy of circularity.

Making a faith out of the Bible is no different to making a faith out of any other Catholic text, such as the Catechisms.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Dre, the point I'm trying to make here is that at the beginning the church was uncorrupt and still reliable, but somewhere down the line after putting together the Bible it was corrupted, and started adding other stuff onto it. In short,

4th century church = Jesus's teachings = Protestant beliefs =/= later Catholic church.

 

[Battlecow]

Nicholas is right and y'all are wrong.

The arguments that you're so confident in only work if the Catholic church of today is the same one that Peter was the first pope of. The entire protestant movement is BASED ON the idea that it is not, that it has been corrupted. You say that the Catholics have spent 2000 years "perfecting" the faith. This is a joke, I assume? Protestants OBVIOUSLY believe otherwise, so unless they're verifiably wrong, it's a "to each his own" situation for you guys at best. How can you possibly verify that the incorporation of pagan beliefs is "perfecting"?

Catholics, man, I tell ya.

 

[_Keno_]

Sucumbio, you don't need to refer to the Bible to answer Protestant scepticism. That's what validates Catholicism over other denominations, it's not epistemically circular because it's not Scripture exlusive, and was the original Tradition who put the Bible together.

So what you're saying is Christianity is the Bible plus more? Meaning that Protestantism just isn't a complete version. Makes sense to me.

Not only that, but the Protestant denominations then claim the institute who collaborated this Bible is not divinely inspired, yet the Bible is. How can you infer that?

Nic answered this a few times. They posit that the institute/earlychurch that collaborated the Bible (which was assumed to be divinely inspired) is NOT the same as the modern day Catholic Church.

And how can you know that the early Church was correct? The only thing we have to tell us that is texts compiled by guess who, the same early Church. Again, the fallacy of circularity.

Ah, so IF the early church was not divinely inspired, then the Bible and therefore Protestantism is faulty. I agree.
However, I dont see how any form of Christianity could be right if the early church is wrong, unless the modern day Catholic Church is somehow divinely inspired and not based off the Early Church.
Seems to me that both the Catholics and the Protestant NEED the early church to be divinely inspired.

 

[Dre89]

But I'm not saying Catholicism is right. I'm saying if it isn't, nothing else is right either.

I understand you're saying the early Church was different (although we have documents from 106 AD showing that not accepting the transubstantiation was a heresy) The point is, if it did end up corrupting, then it's not divinely inspired. The Early Church couldn't be inspired if the same institution then became corrupt.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

And nor does the bible say "just believe and you go to heaven." Can you imagine? All those criminally bad people, who absolutely believe in God, and can't wait to get to heaven. Also it may help for you to cite the biblical passages from which you have drawn your conclusions.

Mark 16:16 - Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, whoever does not believe will be condemned.

To clarify, I mean believe that Jesus died and rose for you, and that he is your savior. NOTE: it isn't saying that if you aren't baptized you will be condemned, only if you don't believe.

There's nothing wrong with worshiping the mother of God. True the Catholics make a bigger deal out of it than the other denominations, but what of it? It's not explicitly forbidden. The "Hail Mary" is a simple reminder to Catholics that Mary was a perfect soul, unblemished by original sin.

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/faith_beliefs/mary_in_bible/

Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...

Mary was not a perfect soul. She was blemished by original sin.

Well just a second ago you said all you have to do is believe, now you have to believe in God... I don't want to nit pick, I just think you need to try harder if you want to find some real reasons why Catholicism is so contradictory, because honestly I don't see contradiction in anything you've brought up, just a fundamental lack of knowledge in scripture.

See above.

Multiple Catholic teachings are contradictory to what the Bible says. I would list them all, but frankly I don't have much time. I will post when I do have more time...

 

[Nicholas1024]

But I'm not saying Catholicism is right. I'm saying if it isn't, nothing else is right either.

I understand you're saying the early Church was different (although we have documents from 106 AD showing that not accepting the transubstantiation was a heresy) The point is, if it did end up corrupting, then it's not divinely inspired. The Early Church couldn't be inspired if the same institution then became corrupt.

That argument just doesn't hold water, IMO. You see, half the history presented in the Bible is about an originally just and holy institution/person/whatever being corrupted by sin. Satan was originally an angel in Heaven, Adam and Eve were perfect before the fall, and Israel fell into idolatry too many times to count. There are also plenty of verses in the new testament warning about false teachers trying to infiltrate the church. From all accounts the danger of corruption is regarded as very present and real throughout the entire Bible, so I don't see how the catholic church being corrupted means the early church couldn't have been divinely inspired.

 

[Dre89]

Firstly, if Adam and Eve were perfect, how could they sin?

And if Adam and Eve, and the Devil were divinely inspired beforei their falls, all that shows is that something considered divinely inspired could be faulty, ie. the Bible. That's wacked out though, because if the Bible is divinely inspired, then that means it's likely to be faulty.

And again, epistemically that argument is circular because it assumes the theology of the Bible is true before you have shown that the Bible is true.

Essentially, your reasoning for believing that the Early Church was divinely inspired came from a Scripture that was produced by the Early Church, so that doesn't work at all.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Firstly, if Adam and Eve were perfect, how could they sin?

And if Adam and Eve, and the Devil were divinely inspired beforei their falls, all that shows is that something considered divinely inspired could be faulty, ie. the Bible. That's wacked out though, because if the Bible is divinely inspired, then that means it's likely to be faulty.

It's because you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have free will without introducing the possibility of doing evil with said free will. Basically, you can't force someone to love.

And again, epistemically that argument is circular because it assumes the theology of the Bible is true before you have shown that the Bible is true.

Essentially, your reasoning for believing that the Early Church was divinely inspired came from a Scripture that was produced by the Early Church, so that doesn't work at all.

This loops around back to my historical arguments for why I believe. Basically, the reason I believe the Gospels are divinely inspired is because the writers of said scripture died for their beliefs (and there is really no motive to lie here, since it was clear from the outset that sticking to their story would mean persecution, loss of standing, and possibly death), they clearly believed what they wrote. Add in that all the major witnesses (Paul, as well as the 12 disciples minus Judas) did the same thing, and it basically eliminates the possibility that they were crazy. However, given the claims about Jesus being the Son of God there are only really three choices here.

1) They were all despicable liars.
2) They were all lunatics, fit to be locked up.
3) They were telling the truth and Jesus IS the Son of God.

From the evidence I outlined above, possibilities 1 and 2 just don't fit the evidence, and once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, regardless of how improbable, must be the truth.

So the tldr would be:

I believe the New Testament is true, because the authors being liars or crazy does not fit the evidence of how they behaved, and considering their close proximity to Jesus, they could not have been mistaken about what they saw.

 

[Dre89]

Well if free will means you can sin then free will and perfection aren't compatible, which means then that either God doesn't have free will, or He has free will but is imperfect.

Besides, if numerous characters in the theology were considered divinely inspired and then fell, then what does it mean to be divinely inspired, seeing they are just as vulnerable to corruption as that which isn't inspired? What does the title add to the Bible then?

This sounds exactly like when you say God is loving and good, but then does actions which contradict the human understanding of loving and good, meaning that those titles are pointless.

As for your historical argument, doesn't all that come from the Scripture in question?

 

[Nicholas1024]

Well if free will means you can sin then free will and perfection aren't compatible, which means then that either God doesn't have free will, or He has free will but is imperfect.

No, perfection and free will are completely compatible, so long as said free will isn't abused. Adam and Eve were perfect up until the fall, and in Heaven everyone will be perfect, while still retaining their free will, they've already chosen eternal life.

Besides, if numerous characters in the theology were considered divinely inspired and then fell, then what does it mean to be divinely inspired, seeing they are just as vulnerable to corruption as that which isn't inspired? What does the title add to the Bible then?

The thing is, that which wasn't inspired was never guaranteed to be reliable in the first place. It's kind of like a foundation for the house. Even if you're building on firm concrete, you could still make a major mistake in construction and have an unstable building, but if you started on unstable sand, regardless of what you do the house will likely come crashing down.

This sounds exactly like when you say God is loving and good, but then does actions which contradict the human understanding of loving and good, meaning that those titles are pointless.

Shall we bring that argument to this thread? It is more or less basically for Christian doctrine and such in general.

As for your historical argument, doesn't all that come from the Scripture in question?

No actually, most of it is gleaned from other historical sources. For example, the persecution Christianity was under, while mentioned in the Bible, can be found in secular sources. Also, most of the various deaths of the 12 disciples aren't in the Bible at all.

By the way, I'm amused that you asked this question, since one false criticism people were leveling at me before I made the debate hall was that I was trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible, and you were the one who defended me in the Jedi Council against said accusations. XD

 

[Dre89]

That's why the question was in question format, because it wasn't an argument, it was a genuine question about whether that specific information was acquired by external texts.

Your notion of perfection isn't really perfection. Pretty much anything is perfect before it makes a mistake, so labelling something perfect and then imperfect after it makes a mistake is another meaningless title. That also means you can have two types of perfection in humans; perfection in the sense that it's perfect until it makes a mistake, and perfect in that it can never make a mistake. You can't have to two types of perfection of the same ontology, because perfection by definition is maximal, it's like saying there's two types of nothingness.

 

[Sucumbio]

Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...

Mary was not a perfect soul. She was blemished by original sin.

Ah, but does"all" in that passage necessarily mean all people on Earth.

See Strong's Lexicon and his definition for the word all. You'll find in that link other evidence as to why Mary is worth such veneration.

Multiple Catholic teachings are contradictory to what the Bible says. I would list them all, but frankly I don't have much time. I will post when I do have more time...

Well to put a finer point on it, multiple passages in the bible contradict one another.

The thing to remember is that at each Council of the Vatican the leaders of the church, who follow their lineage directly from Peter, all were divinely inspired to make the additions/clarifications that they made. Pope John Paul II made this clear and declared for all time that the Catechism is God's law, not because the Catholics decided it should be, but because God willed it, through the leaders of the Church.

This boils down to simple faith, also.

If you're going to believe in God, you are fully within your right to do it on your own terms. There's a passage in the bible that says this, and it's part of Jesus' gospel. But... and it's a pretty big but....

The Catholics have more expertise in matters of faith than does a person who's just recently been saved. They should be trusted to make the best information available through CCD (sunday school) ... through confirmation, through mass. By joining a Catholic congregation, you're sure to get the real deal.

Think of it like this: Christianity is like a bowl of punch. Each Protestant denomination that came out of it (and that continues to develop out of it) is like taking a cup of the punch and diluting it with water (their own interpretations).

If it's to be your soul on the line, do you REALLY want the diluted cup of punch?

 

[_Keno_]

I believe the Gospels are divinely inspired is because the writers of said scripture died for their beliefs (and there is really no motive to lie here, since it was clear from the outset that sticking to their story would mean persecution, loss of standing, and possibly death), they clearly believed what they wrote. Add in that all the major witnesses (Paul, as well as the 12 disciples minus Judas) did the same thing, and it basically eliminates the possibility that they were crazy. However, given the claims about Jesus being the Son of God there are only really three choices here.

What proof do you have that they died for their beliefs, or that they even existed? It's easy for fictional characters to die for something that isn't true.

It's true that people did die for Christianity (just as people of any faith or cause might, based on assumptions that may not be factually based etc), but I've never seen any evidence that the *supposed writers of the Gospels even existed.

 

[Nicholas1024]

What proof do you have that they died for their beliefs, or that they even existed? It's easy for fictional characters to die for something that isn't true.

It's true that people did die for Christianity (just as people of any faith or cause might, based on assumptions that may not be factually based etc), but I've never seen any evidence that the *supposed writers of the Gospels even existed.

Well, that would go back to other writings of the early church, and how they refer to the disciples/persecution/etc. In fact, the gospels themselves are anonymous, but the early church unanimously holds that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were in fact written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. (I'm afraid my details are a little sketchy on this, I haven't researched this part as much.)

I suppose you could make the argument I'm using mainly Christian writings to support Christianity, but what we know of history relies on the assumption that people aren't compulsive liars. Besides, if all the gospels and such didn't happen as advertised, where's the documents contradicting stuff? Why's there nothing from the Pharisees or Romans saying "The Christians claim Jesus did miracles, but we're here to tell you that they didn't." And don't even try the "Maybe they did exist but got destroyed by the catholic church" angle, you need evidence of some sort to claim that, I could just as easily say "Maybe there was more evidence for Jesus that got destroyed by the hostile Roman government".

@Succumbio
Um, you've got it the wrong way around. Basically, if you think of Christianity as a bowl of punch, the catholic church slowly added more and more water to the mix over the years, and when the Protestants checked what was being taught against the original recipe, they realized they didn't match and so went back to the basics. Sure, it's all very well and good for the Pope to claim divine inspiration, but he has to back up that kind of claim. Jesus and the disciples went around and did miracles to prove their authority, what exactly has the Pope done? I'm sure there's plenty of atheists in this debate hall that would be happy to provide you with details regarding some of the Catholic church's worse moments, such as the crusades, the inquisitions, etc. (Of course, then a lot of them try to go a step further and blame it on Christianity as a whole, but that's a different topic.)

I'm really not sure what else I can do to illustrate my argument, if you check what the disciples taught back in the 1st century against what the catholic church teaches, the two just don't match up, and if what the disciples were teaching was wrong, then there's really nothing more to say here.

 

[_Keno_]

Well, that would go back to other writings of the early church, and how they refer to the disciples/persecution/etc.

The earliest known writings about how the disciples died appeared 250-300 years after their supposed deaths.

In fact, the gospels themselves are anonymous, but the early church unanimously holds that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were in fact written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. (I'm afraid my details are a little sketchy on this, I haven't researched this part as much.)

So when the leaders of a religion "unanimously" make a claim about their own religion, that claim should be assumed credible?

I suppose you could make the argument I'm using mainly Christian writings to support Christianity, but what we know of history relies on the assumption that people aren't compulsive liars.

Well, yes, you are using only Christian writings to support Christianity. Of course I'm skeptical of their validity. Are you skeptical of other religions when you see old documents claiming/proving/givingevidence that their religions is true? Yes you are. That's because people DO NOT make the assumption that old writings are true. It requires multiple 3rd party sources and/or historical evidence.

Besides, if all the gospels and such didn't happen as advertised, where's the documents contradicting stuff? Why's there nothing from the Pharisees or Romans saying "The Christians claim Jesus did miracles, but we're here to tell you that they didn't." And don't even try the "Maybe they did exist but got destroyed by the catholic church" angle, you need evidence of some sort to claim that, I could just as easily say "Maybe there was more evidence for Jesus that got destroyed by the hostile Roman government".

The fact that there are no historians or governments denying Jesus/apostles, or even referencing them, during the supposed time of the events is only more evidence that they didn't even exist.

 

[Nicholas1024]

The earliest known writings about how the disciples died appeared 250-300 years after their supposed deaths.

True, but by historical standards that's actually pretty good. (For example, the earliest writings about Alexander the Great are about 400 years after his death.) Besides, the persecution of Christians in Rome is pretty well documented historically, IIRC.

So when the leaders of a religion "unanimously" make a claim about their own religion, that claim should be assumed credible?

When they unanimously died for said claim, and knew before making said claim that persecution was the likely result, yes.

Well, yes, you are using only Christian writings to support Christianity. Of course I'm skeptical of their validity. Are you skeptical of other religions when you see old documents claiming/proving/givingevidence that their religions is true? Yes you are. That's because people DO NOT make the assumption that old writings are true. It requires multiple 3rd party sources and/or historical evidence.

Blast it, I want to see you take some other historical facts, submit them to the same scrutiny you put Christianity under, and see if they hold up. Show me another religion anywhere where all the founders died for their beliefs.

The fact that there are no historians or governments denying Jesus/apostles, or even referencing them, during the supposed time of the events is only more evidence that they didn't even exist.

That's just flat out false. Tacitus DID mention Jesus in his writings, you saw my Evidence behind the New Testament thread, I've mentioned non-Biblical and even non-Christian references to Jesus more than once.

Additionally, please think about it a little. Do you really expect the Jewish and Roman leaders, who would have had direct knowledge about Jesus, and hated Christianity to do what you're suggesting?

"Oh hey, we know that Jesus didn't exist, we were around when those events supposedly happened, but let's never mention it to anyone! It'll work much better if we randomly execute people and let them act like their delusions are true rather than point out the simple fact that Jesus didn't exist to stop anyone with a brain from believing the whole thing! Brilliant plan!"

Not to mention the claims the disciples make in the gospels are pretty easy to check against the facts. I mean, Jesus was executed in Jerusalem (the main Jewish City) during a holiday when it was flooded with tourists. If you're making up a religion, would you claim that your God appeared incarnate and did miracles at say... last year's Superbowl? Of course not, you're guaranteed to have it exposed because the people that really were there would contradict you! The disciples made a similar claim about Jesus's death, and you seriously think that their enemies, who would have loved to stop them and would have known if Jesus didn't exist... just went ahead and let them make said claims?

 

[_Keno_]

True, but by historical standards that's actually pretty good. (For example, the earliest writings about Alexander the Great are about 400 years after his death.) Besides, the persecution of Christians in Rome is pretty well documented historically, IIRC.

Physical evidence exists that supports the basic facts about Alexander the Great's conquest, as well as verbal stories about him that continued being told in all the areas he conquered. Having nothing more than writings is terrible for historical standards.

When they unanimously died for said claim, and knew before making said claim that persecution was the likely result, yes.

Wait what? Follow along with the whole argument, don't treat them as separate unconnected pieces.
The point of my post was to question the existence of the original apostles and whether they died for their beliefs (or even existed), which you responded and provided arguments saying that history proved it. I responded and gave arguments that history did not, and now you're using one of the issues that the discussion is based on to prove itself.

If you don't understand what I just said, backtrack these quotes for yourself to see that you are being circular:

You: I believe the Gospels are divinely inspired is because the writers of said scripture died for their beliefs (and there is really no motive to lie here, since it was clear from the outset that sticking to their story would mean persecution, loss of standing, and possibly death), they clearly believed what they wrote. Add in that all the major witnesses (Paul, as well as the 12 disciples minus Judas) did the same thing, and it basically eliminates the possibility that they were crazy. However, given the claims about Jesus being the Son of God there are only really three choices here.

Me: What proof do you have that they died for their beliefs, or that they even existed? It's easy for fictional characters to die for something that isn't true. It's true that people did die for Christianity (just as people of any faith or cause might, based on assumptions that may not be factually based etc), but I've never seen any evidence that the *supposed writers of the Gospels even existed.

You: In fact, the gospels themselves are anonymous, but the early church unanimously holds that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were in fact written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. (I'm afraid my details are a little sketchy on this, I haven't researched this part as much.)

Me: So when the leaders of a religion "unanimously" make a claim about their own religion, that claim should be assumed credible?

You: When they unanimously died for said claim, and knew before making said claim that persecution was the likely result, yes.

Blast it, I want to see you take some other historical facts, submit them to the same scrutiny you put Christianity under, and see if they hold up. Show me another religion anywhere where all the founders died for their beliefs.

Just give an example and we can argue it, if you like. And you're yet to provide evidence that the founders died for their beliefs other than "the church said so."

That's just flat out false. Tacitus DID mention Jesus in his writings, you saw my Evidence behind the New Testament thread, I've mentioned non-Biblical and even non-Christian references to Jesus more than once.

You didn't read my post very well. Tacitus was around AFTER the events in the Bible take place, not during. He was not there for the events, what he says only proves that Christians existed in 116 AD.

Additionally, please think about it a little. Do you really expect the Jewish and Roman leaders, who would have had direct knowledge about Jesus, and hated Christianity to do what you're suggesting?

I expect historians to write about things that happen, yes. They tend to write about things whether they like them or not....as long as the event ever even occurs...

"Oh hey, we know that Jesus didn't exist, we were around when those events supposedly happened, but let's never mention it to anyone! It'll work much better if we randomly execute people and let them act like their delusions are true rather than point out the simple fact that Jesus didn't exist to stop anyone with a brain from believing the whole thing! Brilliant plan!"

Yup, it was all a conspiracy. All the historians got together and decided not to write about Jesus.

Not to mention the claims the disciples make in the gospels are pretty easy to check against the facts. I mean, Jesus was executed in Jerusalem (the main Jewish City) during a holiday when it was flooded with tourists. If you're making up a religion, would you claim that your God appeared incarnate and did miracles at say... last year's Superbowl? Of course not, you're guaranteed to have it exposed because the people that really were there would contradict you! The disciples made a similar claim about Jesus's death, and you seriously think that their enemies, who would have loved to stop them and would have known if Jesus didn't exist... just went ahead and let them make said claims?

And if it did happen, and earthquakes occured and blah blah, I would assume SOMEBODY would actually write about it. I mean, other than his disciples.

 

[Battlecow]

Sucumbio and Dre, you guys are full of ****. There's absolutely no reason for an atheist to regard the Catholic church as more "holy" or "pure" than your average protestant denomination, and Nicholas and I have proved this. Any further argument on this topic is going to be Dre posting weaselly little logic-traps that make so little sense that it's obvious even he doesn't believe them, or else Sucumbio gyrating on the Pope's **** for no apparent reason.

 

[Dre89]

Looks like someone needs a hug.

Whether you think Catholicism is legit or not, it is distinct from other denominations in that it is the only one that embraces Tradition as well as Scripture. Plus, deviated now or not, it was the first Church, the one who produced the Bible.

So in those regards it is distinct. Protestant denominations are arbitrary interpretations of the Scripture.

 

[Sucumbio]

Looks like someone needs a hug.

Whether you think Catholicism is legit or not, it is distinct from other denominations in that it is the only one that embraces Tradition as well as Scripture. Plus, deviated now or not, it was the first Church, the one who produced the Bible.

So in those regards it is distinct. Protestant denominations are arbitrary interpretations of the Scripture.

It's rare that we agree, and iirc we've agreed on this in the past.

BC don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that Catholicism is better. In the end, whatever faith people hold true to their hearts is what's important. Even if they're atheists, if that's what they need to sleep at night, more power to them. I'm merely saying that for all real intents and purposes Christianity originates in Catholicism.

Think of it like this:

Brawl (Christianity) is the "original." (and I realize it's actually the 3rd game, that's irrelevant to this comparison).

Brawl+ (Protestantism) is an offshoot.

If you're new to Brawl, which would you rather learn? The original? Or the Offshoot? Which is the one that is "official" at tournaments? These are rhetorical questions as this comparison should make my stance clear(er).

All I'm saying is that for me, it's best to learn the original. I was actually raised Episcopal whose roots are in the Church of England, and whose service and doctrines are pretty much identical to Catholicism with the exception of the exultation of mother Mary (they adore and praise her, but don't -worship- her). The point is that after years of "soul-searching" I came to realize that if I was going to be Christian, and REALLY believe in that ****, that I'd be doing myself a disservice in not fully researching the origins of the religion. This lead me down the path of Catholicism, and there I remain. My father would probably kick my ***, him being a stalwart brit and all. But tbh, it's not really that relevant. It's a personal choice.

In the bible, there are all sorts of recommendations. One of these is to spread the Word. Entire faiths are based on this ... Evangelicals. I don't exactly ... agree that it's necessary for me to push my views on others. But what I will do, every time, is suggest that if someone is really interested in Christ, Christianity, faith, etc... that they start with Catholicism. Perhaps they'll arrive at a different conclusion, and join a Baptist ministry. Fine! But if you're really serious about it, I think people owe it to themselves to educate themselves on the origins of the Church. And as far as religious discussion goes, historical or otherwise, I choose the Catholic interpretation hands down, because it is the original.


@Cheap Peach:

Heh, actually you're not that off base. The most evidence for the existence of the original Apostles is in the Bible. Historians will agree that Saint Peter attended the Council of Jerusalem held around the year A.D. 50. Though it too is cited in the Bible as having taken place (and so you'd assume it's an unreliable historical citation) it was also cited in writings by the Church Fathers.

This really boils down to a single concept. Do you accept the Bible as being historically accurate. If so, then many of the accounts within do in fact serve as factual citations of events, places, people that existed, etc. If not, then it's all just a fairy tale, and nothing that it says can be taken literally. To answer this question you have to decide which parts of the Bible are -meant- to be taken literally. This has ended up being one of the most difficult decisions to make throughout the ages. Even today, people misinterpret or misrepresent passages in the Bible to suit their own needs. But historians, their job is to create accounts and timelines of events that actually took place, and to write the Bible off as containing NO valuable information in this regard is a stern decision that may or may not have the best outcome.

 

[Battlecow]

Yo, Catholicism arises from Judaism. You guys better find some Orthodox *****es to marry so you can convert.

Bottom line: Catholic church today ≠ church that created the bible.

 

[Sucumbio]

Well, yeah you have to accept the Old Testament (Judaism) if you're to accept the New Testament, that's only right. The only difference between Jews and Catholics in a nut shell is that the Jews do not believe Jesus was the Son of God.

Bottom line: of course they're not the same, no one is saying they are (I think? I'm not anyway). But the history of the Catholic Church is of paramount importance in understanding what Christianity is really about, and the way in which the Church has changed over the years, according to Pope John Paul II, is by divine intervention.

 

[Battlecow]

No, no, but if I "logically" (lol) have to accept that the catholic church is "purer and truer" than protestant denominations, you have to accept that judaism is purer yet. After all:

Think of it like this:

Smash 64 (Judaism) is the "original."

Brawl (Catholicism) is an offshoot.

If you're new to smash, which would you rather learn? The original? Or the Offshoot? Which is the one that is not a piece of **** game? These are rhetorical questions as this comparison should make my stance clear(er).

 

[Sucumbio]

That reasoning fits but with one slight ... issue. The New Testament is where the deviation comes into play between Jews and Catholics.

Protestants are an offshoot of the New Testament teachings.

Also, the New Testament is prefaced with an admission that the Old Testament is legit, and should be studied. It doesn't decry anything outright, it just says that it happened, it's important, and here's the rest of "the greatest story ever told." So basically you have Jews (Old T) Catholics (Old + New) and Protestants (Old + New - whatever they don't like). The most complete picture, therefore, is the Catholic rendition, as you get both Old and New, and nothing removed for convenience sake.

That's not to say that the Catholics did not prune their doctrine, there are records of plenty of Books that never made it into the Bible (that the Vatican still is in possession of), but that's a whole other discussion.